I had my iphone 4s jailbroken up until i sold it for the iphone 5. one of the only things i miss the most is bite sms, this tweak that changed banner notifications and few other minor tweaks apple still hasnt implemented to their ios. God I can not wait for an untethered ios6 jb to come out. whos with me>?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone Upset about no jailbreak for 6.0.1
- Thread starter dannyhex
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can't wait either but seeing as we have no idea where it is or when it's coming its best not to talk about it and get your hopes up.
Unless you are smart enough to develop your own jailbreak tool, what other choice do you have except to wait.
All these repetitious threads complaining about the time it takes for a new jailbreak for a new firmware level and new devices are superfluous, new jailbreaks just take time, perhaps you should have kept your 4S.
Suppose I am an app developer and I want to distribute my apps. The official app store charges a 30% cut (plus $100 a year), so I decide to go with one of the competing app distribution channels.
only to find that Apple has prevented iOS devices from installing apps that didnt come from Apples own app store, so there are no competing app stores.
That is unambiguously a monopoly on app distribution. Apple is abusing its position by forcibly stifling competition in the market for distributing iOS apps.
Furthermore, the concept of ownership necessarily entails the power to do whatever one wishes with ones possessions (so long as no one else gets hurt.) In order to meaningfully say you own an iOS device, you must be able to install and run any programs you choose.
By preventing individuals from running the apps of their choice on their iOS devices, Apple has undermined the concept of ownership in this arena. The morally and legally right thing to do is for Apple to provide a mechanism through which iOS device owners can authorize apps to run on their own devices.
If Apple wants to maintain strict control over which programs are allowed in its official app store, that is fine. But preemptively disallowing competing app stores is unacceptable, and denying consumers the ability to run the apps of their choice on the iOS devices they own is even worse.
only to find that Apple has prevented iOS devices from installing apps that didnt come from Apples own app store, so there are no competing app stores.
That is unambiguously a monopoly on app distribution. Apple is abusing its position by forcibly stifling competition in the market for distributing iOS apps.
Furthermore, the concept of ownership necessarily entails the power to do whatever one wishes with ones possessions (so long as no one else gets hurt.) In order to meaningfully say you own an iOS device, you must be able to install and run any programs you choose.
By preventing individuals from running the apps of their choice on their iOS devices, Apple has undermined the concept of ownership in this arena. The morally and legally right thing to do is for Apple to provide a mechanism through which iOS device owners can authorize apps to run on their own devices.
If Apple wants to maintain strict control over which programs are allowed in its official app store, that is fine. But preemptively disallowing competing app stores is unacceptable, and denying consumers the ability to run the apps of their choice on the iOS devices they own is even worse.
It's Apple's OS on Apple's devices, they can do what the **** they like. If you want an ecosystem which officially allows competing app stores, you can always develop for Android.
To the TS I highly doubt we will see a Jailbreak till 6.1 comes out. We all love to see the jailbreak today of course. try going though about 800 MB of coding looking for a needle and a haystack. Any way I love your original thread thanks for posting it.
Once they sell you the device, then it is yours, not Apple’s. That is the doctrine of first sale. It is why you are allowed to resell it, and in general use it as you wish.
The problem is that even after selling you the device, Apple continues to deny you the ability to install the programs of your choice.
No they cannot. You know that as well as I do. There are laws preventing them from doing loads of things, and for good reason.
If you’d like to make the argument that you think Apple should be allowed to do the specific things in question, namely to unilaterally disallow competing app distribution channels and to deny consumers the ability to choose which programs run on their devices, then make that case.
But saying Apple is allowed to do anything it wants is patently false.
And if you want a gemstone from a competitive market you can buy a ruby. The fact remains that DeBeers had a monopoly on the diamond trade for decades, regardless of what the ruby market was like.
What Apple is doing right now is anti-competitive. It undermines the free market, and it subverts the rights of consumers to have full control over their own devices.
Number 1 company in the world so I'm guessing it really doesn't matter to them. At the end of the day they rake in the cash and people line up for there devices.
I'm not supporting them in the sense that the day I can no longer get my iPhone jailbroken it's time to find another phone. However from there prospective they are winning.Oh, absolutely, Im right there with you. The question is whether we (and by we I mean our elected representatives) should continue to permit this sort of anti-competitive behavior by any company at all.Number 1 company in the world so I'm guessing it really doesn't matter to them. At the end of the day they rake in the cash and people line up for there devices.
I feel that when a trusted computing model is used, meaning only programs from a trusted source can be run on a given device, then any change of ownership (ie. the sale of a product) must also transfer to the new owner the ability to allocate trust for that specific device.
In other words, when you buy a device, you should get the power to decide what apps run on it. And Id like to see the force of law behind that, as a consumer-protection measure to preserve the doctrine of first sale.
Indeed, Ive had a 4S since it came out, and I am sticking with iOS 5 until 6 is jailbroken. There are a lot of features, apps, and functionality I use that are not available through the official app store, and for me these far outweigh the small number of iOS 6 features and exclusive apps that Im missing out on.
The one feature I would like is the new panorama mode, but for now Photosynth is more than sufficient. And the one iOS 6-only app Id like to try is HDR³, but Im content with HDR Fusion, True HDR, and Pro HDR.
Say I want to buy a house in a really fancy neighborhood. So I save up $500,000, pick out the newly built house, pay it off in cash, and move in.
Then I decide I want to let my grass grow really high (reminds me of home in the tall African prairies).
Then I get a letter from the Homeowners Association stating that I will get fined if I don't cut it to an acceptable height.
WTF man, I own the home and the half-acre lot it's sitting on! If I can't let my grass grow high, why bother owning a house, right? I guess I don't really "own" it.
I completely agree. If you are not hurting anyone else, nor depriving anyone else of their property, the Homeowners Association has no business telling you what you may or may not do with your property.
That's why I'm sitting here waiting with my iPhone 4 JB. I'd infinitely rather have a JB device than the newest one on stock. But LTE is VERY tempting though.
We covered this already. Buying an Android phone is not a suitable replacement for an iOS device, anymore than a ruby is a suitable replacement for a diamond.
Yes, they are both gemstones, but that does not mean someone in the market for a diamond would be happy with a ruby. And it does not mean that DeBeers should somehow be given a free pass for its diamond monopoly, just because rubies also exist.
DeBeers should be judged on the actions it takes, which for decades involved leveraging its monopoly position to manipulate prices and drive competitors out of business.
The HOA should be judged on the actions it takes, which in the scenario described include restricting what property owners can do with their property.
And Apple should be judged on the actions it takes, which right now include preventing users from running the apps of their choice on iOS devices, and disallowing competitors from distributing iOS apps through any channel except Apple itself.
Completely different scenarios. Me growing tall grass on my property lowers the value of the properties in the neighborhood as it is an eye sore to see an unkempt yard. Me having the option to install a different app store on my device does not lower your phone's value at all.
This is like complaining that Microsoft's Xbox will only play Xbox games. It's an Xbox game system, that only plays Xbox games. You own an iOS device that will only run iOS apps. If you want to develop Xbox LIVE arcade games, you have to distribute through the Xbox LIVE Marketplace. Is that a problem, too? Do you think Xbox and Playstation systems should play the others' games?
I do not use an Xbox, and I have not looked into the specifics of Xbox game distribution, so I do not know how analogous it is to the iOS ecosystem.
I think that game developers should be able to create and distribute games for Xbox, Playstation, and any other platform they want, regardless of whether Microsoft, Sony, or anyone else wants them to.
The fundamental basis of a free market is that no one can tell anyone else what they may or may not make or sell. When one agent in the market forcibly prevents others from competing, that is an abuse of monopoly power.
Apple is selling an inclusive app store for their iOS devices. Are you telling them they can't sell that?
That word: I do not think it means what you think it means.
To your larger point, I am saying Apple should not be able to prevent others from competing in the market for distributing iOS apps, and Apple should not be able to prevent individuals from installing and running the apps of their choice on their devices.
To the even larger point, I am saying no company should be allowed to abusive its monopoly position in order to stifle competition and deny consumers control over their purchased goods.